partisan hacks
Something about being a member of the Jon Stewart/Daily Show-church means that identifying and calling out hypocrisy is one of your highest callings. In the 2000s that meant calling out war hawks and CNBC-shills, in the 2010s it meant clipping together Fox News segments to show they just hated Obama. Now a days… I don’t know. Everything? It’s too easy. We’re constantly assaulted with ripe hypocrisy. In my opinion it’s less about an ideological split1 and more that we have endless media to clip from. People are always posting and that means that people are always contradicting themselves. People are complicated, and stupid — so you can bet your ass they’re also going to be hypocritical (except me, never).
But calling out hypocrisy shouldn’t be the goal unto itself. If someone is a hypocrite because in 2015, they supported free trade and now in 2024 they support 20% trade taxes (tariffs) on all imported goods their hypocrisy is not the failure. The belief that 20% tariffs on all imported goods is the position worth calling out.
For example:
Mike: I’m excited to vote for Trump, he’s going to place tariffs on all imported goods! I like that!
Duncan: Didn’t you support free trade until a few years ago? You’re such a hypocrite!
-or-
Duncan: I don’t know — coffee is already pretty expensive, and I don’t know why we need to penalize banana importers when we don’t grow bananas here. I think it’s probably a bad idea. You’re such an idiot!
In both scenarios I get to insult the other person (sick!) but in one you’re engaging in a discussion that attempts to change someone’s mind on the merits, or at least express your own, distinct, opinion. I know, engaging on the merits is not very Chad-coded.
I spent the past weekend with a ton of conservatives, and not to toot my own horn, but I was well behaved. I did my best to nod along and not upset the apple cart. But at one point I couldn’t stay quiet and had to complain about an apparent Hatch Act violation.
Me, not knowing much about the Hatch Act other than there was a lot of complaining about it from the left during the Trump administration snapped back “Oh, so now you care about the Hatch Act?”
That was stupid, not a good way to engage with someone, but it hit that pleasure center in my brain that goes off when someone so obviously is a hypocrite. A Krispy Kreme donut. Delicious, but unfulfilling.
We chatted some more, and when we reached the end of the discussion he went: “Yeah, I’m a partisan — I’m going to be hypocritical”.
And like…ok?
There’s really not much you can say after someone basically says that their positions are unprincipled and they’re just going to argue for their own team. So why bother?
Importantly, is this how most people operate? Are most folks operating in a Republican- or Democrat-leaning mode and then back into their opinions accordingly? How often are folks evaluating a situation on the merits and then deciding which position to take on any given issue?
I think most folks inherit their parent’s worldview and make slight adjustments as they themselves grow up. But those modifications take place within their pre-existing value set. And let me be clear, there’s nothing wrong with that.
“If Kamala didn’t say ABC”
“If Trump wasn’t doing XYZ”
These caveats create a sense that if only a certain box was checked they would change their mind. Some people don’t want to change — give it a go but don’t lose sleep over it. Ignore the hypocrisy.
I wrote briefly about this back in 2022, and it still rings true: engage with the issue and not their position history. Debates are not being held in front of judges who will score points according to your cleverness. Discussing issues with people requires you to ask questions and frame your own opposing view in a way that is appealing. Calling out hypocrisy is akin to a classic debating fallacy, “Appeal to Authority”, where their past opinion is an authority.
It’s better to disagree about why a sign is good or bad on the merits. It’s better to disagree about why a national protection for a women’s right to choose is good on the merits.
It’s also okay to be a principle-less partisan pariah, but let’s be upfront about that! If you’re not open to new ways of thinking that’s ok! There’s no requirement in the Constitution that you evaluate all options to the fullest of your ability. You can believe all sorts of nonsense…what’s new?
Not both-sidesing here…it’s just more about the proliferation of content in general. There is certainly more bad faith hypocrisy on the right.